Wednesday, December 08, 2004

Oy Veh? Ruppert Unmasked? In Partial Defense of the Man

In contrast to my off the cuff comment which was republished around the world in regards to Jimmy Walter's security goon squad attacks at the 9/11/2004 Grand Ballroom event, my recent blog posting seems to have gotten little attention other than Nico saying that he pissed in his pants that it was so funny.

However, since it ended up on Nico's blog -- I'm sure many people did read it.

Now I'm ready to open my big Jewish mouth again, but first two points of regret.

It was indicated to me by certain people I respect that my comment regarding Jimmy Walters could be interpreted as making fun of his physical disability (some weird neurologial's not worth me talking about it, I'm not an MD -- let's just say the one time I talked to him it was clear things weren't all well with him neurologically -- he seemed mentally sane but was jumping around in a very weird way.) When I wrote that little note, I had no idea it would be published on blogs around the world. In no way did I intend to make fun of Jimmy Walter's physical disability. The issue, was that he had his co-organizers of his event physically attacked by security guards and thrown out of the event. Worse yet, some of the people thrown out seemed to take it a little too much in stride -- probably in my opinion -- because they were hoping to get more money out of him in the future.

It was outrageous what Jimmy Walters did that night. I myself feel very ashamed that I said nothing, because I was making good money that night selling Tshirts and there was nothing I could have done anyway other than gotten thrown out myself. Nor did I have all the facts at my disposal. But still I feel bad about just standing around there. To make matters even more poignant I received a handwritten note from a friendly 9/11 activist specifically warning me not to object verbally to these goon attacks for my own good. She wrote this note to me, obviously because she knew that I would be one of the most likely people to try to jump in to defend the people being dragged off.

It amazed me that after my note got published that certain people were more outraged that my comment could possibly be construed as making fun of Jimmy Walters than the actual goon attacks. But I do recognize that I could have chosen my words better. For all his obvious failings, I do respect Jimmy Walters for putting money behind a cause that has few other financial backers. He seems like a good person trying to do some good with the money he inherited, albeit with severely flawed judgment.

This brings me to my second retraction. People who know me know that I am hopping stinking mad at the way I have been treated by the 9/11 Truth movement oligarchy, but specifically by Kyle Hence of Unanswered Questions website. In my last blog posting I gave a fairly detailed chronology of what transpired and how Kyle, in my opinion did an enormous amount to retard the development of a 9/11 Truth movement in New York City.

The blog posting was basically a letter I wrote to John Leonard, publisher of the War on Freedom whom I've been writing lengthy memos to try to explain to him my bird's eye view on the history of the 9/11 Truth movement in NYC . . . and in turn I guess I've been doing this to try to get a lot of anger off my chest. I did edit the letter quickly before posting it on the blog but unfortunately there was a sentence that ended up being reposted on Nico's blog which contained a disparaging reference to the physical appearance of 9/11 Truth bureaucrat Les Jamieson -- a man who seems to think the movement here is his personal property.

Let me get this straight. It's none of my business whether Les is handsome or ugly, sexy or not sexy. Just as it's none of my business what neurological (as opposed to mental) disorder Jimmy Walters suffers from. That sentence of my blog posting was absolutely wrong to post, was a result of my sloppy editing, but even more basically was a by-product of the extreme anger I feel at the way I've been treated.

For the record, Les Jamieson really is a decent looking guy -- can be considered way too sexy for the second Bush administration. The real issue is that he has helped foster the perenially undemocratic meetings that characterize the movement here in NYC and besides that he is an incredibly boring speaker which apparently is what you have to be to be high on the list of 9/11 speakers in New York.

Ok let's get to the thing which is inspiring to type here early in the morning in Brooklyn 9/8/2004...oops wow we just hit another Pearl Habor day eh?

I picked up another one of Nico's INN emails and what do I find, this rant by Mike Ruppert...

“Oh, and your vaunted list of 911 researchers … with the exceptions of Web Tarpley, David Ray Griffin, Jim Hoffman, Tom Flocco and Kyle Hence, all of them are flakes or well-intentioned neophytes who, because of their associations with UFO’s, David Icke and the like are certain destroyers of 911 credibility if the issue were ever to reach the mainstream.

-- This bold paragraph is really an attack on Wing TV and I guess its leader, Viktor Thorne

Nico adds the following commentary which I will italicize

As you’ll see in the above mentioned article, this list includes: Jim Marrs, Christopher Bollyn of the American Free Press, Ralph Omholt, John Kaminski, Dave McGowan, Kee Dewdney, Dave Von Kleist, Phil Jayhan, Eric Hufschmid, George Humphrey, Jerry Russell, Nico Haupt, Russ Wittenberg, Don Paul, Michael Elliott, Dylan Avery, Daniel Hopsicker, Anthony Hilder, Stanley Hilton, Karl Schwartz, John Leonard, Richard Stanley, and Donn de Grand-Pre...

This kind of shocked me for a moment because I would be surprised for Ruppert to launch such a virulent attack on rather respected people at least say, Kee Dewdney (an incredibly wonderful man, mathematics professor and noted science author), Don Paul and Karl Schwartz. I certainly don't know what Ruppert thinks of everyone on the list below, but the point is he didn't actually associate these people with David Icke and David Icke's theory of GOP lizard metamorphosis AS SUCH, but rather Nico is saying that he did so by implication.

For the record, in my opinion, Nico Haupt is neither a flake, nor a neo-phyte, simply a stark raving madman and idiot savant researcher extraordinaire. But with all his failings, he's the only hope I have that anyone will ever read anything I write, so I owe the man alot...

Well let's look at Ruppert's approved list of 9/11 freaks. What does Rabbi Philo think of them?

Ruppert likes Webster Tarpley
Rabbi Philo --- agrees that Webster Tarpley is a wonderful human being and absolutely brilliant

Ruppert likes Jim Hoffman
Rabbi Philo -- met Jim Hoffman on only one occasion, got a wonderful interview with Jim Hoffman which he then used as the basis for a lesbian seduction 9/11 truth screenplay which was never shot because the actresses kept quitting. Rabbi Philo's opinion of Jim was that Jim was a first rate brilliant guy. Jim's presentation in Toronto at the international inquiry was also excellent

Ruppert like Tom Flocco
Rabbi Philo --- has never had any interaction with Tom Flocco but often reads Tom Flocco's materials and is of the opinion that while Tom Flocco may be a good well meaning guy, his politics are on the far right of the 9/11 truth movement, which may not bother Ruppert but certainly bothers Rabbi Philo. Some of Flocco's materials read like anti immigrant diatribes. Rabbi Philo was further distressed in a conversation with the brilliant and admirable Michael Kane of Clarity who works for Ruppert and wrote a chapter of Ruppert's book. Michael Kane had the temerity to tell Rabbi Philo that, "both the RIGHT and the LEFT are wrong on immigration." Rabbi Philo's response would be that since the RIGHT has 100% of the power and 100% of the guns, it doesn't really matter that the left might be "wrong" if the "left" exists at all in the USA as anything else than paid pawns of people like Jimmy Walters, George Soros, Wes Boyd, Ben Cohen or whomever else might be willing to pay them a salary.

In any case, Rabbi Philo does not think that people like Tom Flocco or Catherine Austin Fitts (whom Rabbi Philo has had sporadic contact with and has a high opinion of) should be simply considered uncriticizable gurus simply because they are friends with Ruppert. Anti-immigrant hate mongering is a first step toward building a mass fascist movement and if the anti-immigrant activist is a 9/11 truth activist it changes nothing. We know from Michael Springman that terrorist immigrants will get into the USA no matter what the laws so the last thing we need to do is help the neo-con fascists by calling for closing down the borders.

And the last person on Ruppert's list of approved 9/11 investigators is all around ass kissing, don't draw any conclusions about anything, shut your mouth to not discredit the movement in front of the fascist mainstream media himself -- KYLE HENCE.

This is what inspired me to read the discourse between Viktor Thorne and Mike Ruppert. I'm not trying attack Mike Ruppert for praising Kyle Hence. I'm not saying that anyone who praises Kyle Hence is automatically wrong about anything else...In fact, I will praise Kyle in a minute for the things he did right way back when. But as I demonstrated in my last article, in my opinion, Kyle did more to retard the development of a movement here in NYC than anyone else and the keystone of that negative work were his attacks on me.

To summarize my last article, the problems arose when Kyle came into town in mid 2003 after 8 months in which I was doing more networking on this issue than anyone else and Kyle appointed Premila Dixit (whose name I couldn't remember) as lord high guru of the local movement. Kyle did not at that time or any other time have authority from anyone else than his own mind to appoint anyone as the leader of anything. Literally overnight I was demoted from the person who was doing all the work and widely and internationally recognized as such, to a person who was lucky to even be invited to meetings. Next I was slandered as a reverse race baiter because I questioned why two black activists were disinvited to a meeting, and soon afterward I was effectively banned from speaking at every 9/11 event in the city. Finally Kyle had the temerity to physically kick me out of his so called Citizen's Commission hearings.

Yes, I regret yelling out that Kyle Hence was an FBI agent. I have not the slightest evidence that Kyle Hence works for the FBI. All I can tell you is that he has done as much or greater damage to the movement in New York City that if he was working for the FBI. In fact, I suspect that he is not working for any agency of the government, because I would imagine that a real agente provocateur would be far more subtle. Real agente provocateurs usually pose as being the most dedicated and MOST RADICAL in a fringe organization... case in point, Malinovsky in the Russian Revolution who convinced Lenin that he was genuine while really working for the Tsarist Police. Kyle Hence, on the contrary, is totally open about being very rightward leaning in his politics and very moderate in his activities. So, Kyle, sorry for calling you an FBI agent, you probably aren't an FBI agent, just a real shmuck.

But the question remains, why does Ruppert have such a high opinion of Kyle Hence?

One thing that struck me about Kyle when I first met him was how conservative he was politically. The first time we had dinner together (I believe 9/14/2002) on hearing that I was a Marxist his response was, "you are not a Marxist." And I thought to myself, This man only met me three days ago and we have only spoken twice. Why does he think he is a greater expert on my OWN OPINIONS about the world than I am.

I mean hey, it's just outrageous, you tell someone that you are a Marxist, or a Humanist, or an Atheist, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Pagan or a Republican or a Nazi --- whatever... and they don't even know you and they tell you that you are lying or simply mistaken. Isn't every person more of an expert on their own beliefs than anyone else, much less someone who doesn't know the person in question?

But Kyle probably meant something like the following -- oh, you are an intelligent guy and all Marxists are idiots thus you can't be a Marxist. He was saying it in a friendly and insipid way. This was shortly after I had read over 6000 pages to write a 120 page article that was the foundation for a short ghost written encyclopedia entry (I produced the first draft) of a professor of mine for the Oxford Encyclopedia's of American law's entry on Marxism and the Law.

Having been a Marxist for at least 15 years prior to meeting Kyle and just having done this incredibly indepth research into Marxist philosophy, what was Kyle's intellectual background to make such a statement? He apparently had been a sailor who specialized in moving rich people's yachts around.

I don't know if his activities in yacht moving included reading Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, or the Grundrisse, or the Critique of Political Economy or the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 . . . but nonetheless Kyle knew my ideas better than I did.

I'm going to say one last thing about Kyle before getting to Ruppert. If you watch Kyle's video (produced with GNN) AFTERMATH (which in my opinion is a pretty lousy product -- albeit decent for the time) you have this interview with George Soros, a man responsible for an incredible amount of economic destruction and manipulation of whole countries' economies and governments. Soros says that we have to fight terrorism but we are doing it the wrong way and the Bush administration is in effect stifling dissent.

Now I can accept that Soros may not be 100% evil, and within the context of being an incredibly powerful billionaire who is responsible perhaps for an incredible amount of murder and mayhem globally, he may have a conscience. And the guy does seem, within a certain context, at least within the context of US politics to be on the liberal lefty side of things. But, just because he has criticized Bush, doesn't mean he can be absolved for one second from all his other crimes. And in this brief comment in AFTERMATH Soros does say that we need to fight the war on terror which effectively implies that the USA is not the terrorist and that there are terrorists out there and thus some form of US militarism is justified albeit a more liberal variety. And that leads to the conclusion that maybe we should vote Democrat and since he is the largest monetary contributor to the Democrats, effectively George Soros should be given the reigns of power in the USA.

This is by no means the only problem with the AFTERMATH video, but in any case, it's just one example of how Kyle views the 9/11 movement has having value primarily to the extent that it can raise money from donations from wealthy people. Kyle also stated in our very first meeting how we should be trying to cozy up to people like Arianna Huffington. Again, not to claim that she's all bad, but you have to be skeptical of the motives of extremely wealthy people who claim to be the demogogic leaders of the masses. Apparently Kyle managed to contact George Soros because he was a yachtmen on Soros' son's yacht. Which again shows how Kyle's modus operandi is hob nobbing with extremely wealthy people. And in order to do that hob nobbing the first rule is NEVER CRITICIZE THEM... and the second rule is NEVER ALLOW YOUR ASSOCIATES TO CRITICIZE THEM... and included in the second rule is the corollary, it doesn't matter if the associate in question's name is Professor Michel Chossudovsky and his IQ is about 80 points higher than yours.

So getting back to Ruppert, I don't have the same animosity toward Ruppert than I have toward Kyle. Ruppert never did anything to hurt the movement here in NYC quite the opposite, he's done a huge amount to help build it. In the article attacking Ruppert, Viktor Thorn makes the accusation that Ruppert is getting rich off the 9/11 movement about 10 times. Over and over again you read Viktor Thorn with his ($$$$) in parentheses, making estimates as to Ruppert's income. Well, there nothing wrong in principle about raising these issues...

But in response Ruppert points out that he has to pay his staff including Professor Jamie Hecht whom I consider a wonderful friend and one of the very very best and most intelligent people in both the 9/11 movement and the general Green Party millieu here in NYC and also Stan Goff and Dale Allen Pfeiffer whom I don't know personally but I consider their writing to be of the highest quality. And also Michael Kane who has done so much for the movement locally through his incredible music talent, intellectual abilities and political dedication (ok yes, I print Michael Kane's Tshirts and loosely participate here and there in the management of his band...but have never made a penny off these activities.) But in any case, to the extent that I have some personal insight into where Ruppert puts the money that he receives off of FTW subscriptions, I can say that it would be hard to find people better than the people he is able to pay modest salaries to.

And thus, in some ways, I find Thorn's insinuations to be somewhat sinister. If people cut off subscriptions to Ruppert's site and he lays off people like Professor Hecht and Michael Kane (I'm sticking to people I know personally here no offense to Goff and Pfeiffer) I can say personally that this would be tremendously damaging to these great guys who have done so much for us here in NYC. On the other hand, if people stop donating money to Kyle Hence and his left wing gate keeper website Unanswered Questions, I can assure you that Kyle Hence being bankrupt would not set the movement back one iota.

And yet Ruppert likes Kyle so much. Why? Probably because Kyle besides being an ass licker of the elites is also extremely cautious in what he will say. So cautious that I would say that his criticism of the status quo is so mild as to be IGNORABLE.

So we get back into the whole LIHOP vs MIHOP debate. Kyle was once of the most virulent attackers of MIHOP for a long time. And since he would hang out in 9/11 truth activist circles and try to utilize us as pawns in his fundraising games he was able to do alot of damage demanding that the movement censor itself.

I want to make one major point here that tremendously transcends whether Kyle has treated me unfairly or not. There is in the abstract and has been in the particular, a natural statistical arc in which someone like Kyle naturally contributes a lot in the beginning and becomes a detriment to a radical movement more and more as time goes on. In the beginning (no not when God created the heavens and the Earth but let's say 9/12/2001) heck, we didn't know much. Even people like Mike Ruppert had to take much of what the mainstream media said at face value. By today's standards, Mike Ruppert's original Oh Lucy timeline, was a very conservative piece of criticism -- and so was Unanswered and Unanswered Questions still is.

When one is very close to a historic event, it is natural to give at least some credence to the official story. Ok, I have met two 9/11 skeptics who are so skeptical that they question even the story about planes crashing into the buildings (both were at ground zero, one in building four, the other under the building...and one of them actually saw a piece of fuselage on the ground yet is still skeptical about the "story" regarding planes hitting the towers.) I mean heck, even David Von Kleist and Kee Dewdney believe planes hit the towers.

But little by little, more and more radical criticism of the official story tends to become acceptable. In terms of the history of the 9/11 truth movement I will note that today, Eric Hufschmid's theory which was so fringe in 2002 (note how Nafeez Ahmed says nothing of it in The War on Freedom) became quite acceptable by early 2004 (note it's inclusion in David Griffen's book). And the Pentagon theory of Thierry Meyssan was also considered fringe at first and is now accepted it seems by the majority of mainstream leading 9/11 researchers including Tarpley who Ruppert praises and David Griffen although apparently no longer by Jim Hoffman (haven't researched Hoffman's latest yet.)

Back in 2002, the most compelling arguments about government negligence or complicity in 9/11 (and I say negligence or complicity in one phrase INTENTIONALLY) was the whole deal of the non mobilization of the airforce (nicely detailed by Jared Israel and later Nafeez Ahmed) and then things like the Colleen Rowley memo. Put slightly differently, early on we were thinking about things like:

A) Why if they had the evidence needed to capture the 9/11 terrorists before they boarded the planes, why didn't they?

B) Why if they had the ability to intercept (and then we get back into the old issue that intercept doesn't necessarily mean shoot down) the planes, why didn't they?

Crucially here, we need to understand that if we allow the Bush administration to maintain the excuse that they were simply mentally retarded, we are granting them an automatic victory. Mental retardation is not an impeachable offense. That's what all the defenders of the official story threw at us. They said, hey the government was surprised by this surprise attack and maybe they didn't do a good job but that's the nature of surprise attacks.

And they maintain these arguments even with the video tape of W. Bush. If you look carefully at the tape of Bush in the Florida school you can notice that after Card whispers in Bush's ear, Bush does not even move his facial muscles...not even slightly. Card allegedly said that, "a second plane has hit, America is under attack" Having watched the tape at least 500 times I doubt that Card's mouth was next to Bush's ear long enough to utter than sentence. So really we don't know what Card said. But if he really did mention the second attack (and Bush already knew about the first) the lack of any movement of Bush's facial muscles implies that either he is a comatose psycho or perhaps drugged out. In fact, I have speculated that Card actually said, "we got a call from the pharmacist and they are still out of your Thorzine." This statement at least when matched with the peculiar nodding of Bush's head would at least make sense.

Point being, the LIHOP theory is essentially pretty boring. Certainly it is an easier progression for some people from a plain vanilla negligence argument than MIHOP is. After all, the government didn't have to do anything different in an extreme negligence scenario than in a LIHOP scenario. In the former scenario they had some info and were just inept and in LIHOP they had info and sat on it intentionally. It is difficult to prove intent because then you have to get into Bush's mind if he has one or Cheney's mind whatever.

Whereas, if you accept the theories regarding the trade center being blown up or the Pentagon being attacked with a missile, this is not boring. This is not something that can be easily accepted by a pro official story negligence partisan, but at the same time, while its fairly easy to fall back from LIHOP to negligence -- once you believe that the WTC was blown up or the Pentagon attack was a missile...there's no going back unless you change your mind about the underlying physical evidence.

For example when I tell people that the Pentagon was attacked by a missile sometimes they ask me...who shot the missile? I mean heck it's a dumb question, obviously it would be a US government missile... and then they ask, why would they do that? And it all falls back to the utter naivete that the defense establishment of the US government or defense establishments in general in world history have ever existed to defend all the people within a territory or rather simply a tiny elite.

Was United States security hurt by the Pentagon attack? Of course not, they can always rebuild it at taxpayer expense. Who benefitted? The defense establishment, of course, which received the immediate sympathy of all the taxpayers that it rips off every year. Who apparently was hurt by the attacks... well the Taliban in Afghanistan who were driven from power. So why is it so obvious that we were attacked from abroad when the alleged attacked did not benefit and the alleged victims (at least in the case of the Pentagon being attacked as in the defense establishment not the pathetic military pawns who actually died in there) benefitted so much.

Early 9/11 Truth activists and webmasters like Ruppert and Kyle Hence faced a very very hostile climate in which even the slightest criticism of the government was somewhat courageous. But once enough evidence is out and a critic falls behind the curve of legitimate criticism the road to becoming a gate keeper of the status quo is a short one and for Kyle that was inevitable. I don't see so clearly that that has been the case with Ruppert. Ruppert has emphasized areas where we have firmer knowledge but he has never, to my knowledge, attempted to silence and disrupt the efforts of other activists as Kyle has done so effectively.

Now I'm going to get into the meat, tofu or tempeh of Viktor Thorne's critique.

One point Thorne makes is that Ruppert predicted the invasion of Saudi Arabia by the USA which has not yet occurred.

I have a lot of respect for Ruppert as a commentator on international politics. I think the man is intelligent and perceptive. It does not follow that everything he says will come true. True, the USA has not YET invaded Saudi Arabia, maybe it never will and maybe it will... we don't know. However, Ruppert did predict that the USA would invade Iraq NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE PACIFIST OPPOSITION MIGHT BE... and he surely ended up right on that score. And let us recall that on 9/11/2002 it hardly appeared absolutely 100 percent certain that Bush would get away with such a brazen attack against widespread opposition around the world.

Well at least it didn't appear that way to me. The USA had launched only one major war in my lifetime, in the Gulf War and there had been a much clearer causus belli... ie Iraq's invasion of Kuwait regardless of whether one believes they were tricked into the invasion by the US ambassador. It just didn't seem to me that one could be so sure that Bush would get his way. But today the world as laid out by Mike Ruppert 2 years ago has come to pass. It has become clear that the USA powers that be are prepared to lose thousands of troops in Iraq and spend tens of billions of dollars even if Iraq's oil production is no greater today than it was under fact that's not really the point. The point is controlling the oil not pumping it out faster necessarily.

And look today at the strength of the insurgency in Saudi Arabia. Who the hell are these people? Are they getting aid from the CIA? What is clear is that Saudi Arabia is a heck of a lot less stable than it appeared to be back in 2002. And furthermore, there is a huge groundswell of LIHOPers and semi LIHOPers that want to point the finger at Saudi Arabia -- Michael Moore, Craig Unger, perhaps our beloved Greg Palast as well and never at Israel. And this faction has support amongst Democrats in Congress. One could see this mood in the speeches of John Kerry here and there. ie the whole point is we need to be energy independent from Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia bad bad bad, Saudi Arabia human rights violators, Saudi Arabia responsible for 9/11 -- USA, Bush and Israel never responsible for anything.

True we haven't invaded Saudi Arabia, but there certainly seems to be a disturbing liberal faction that would do so, one could imagine a John Kerry or Howard Dean being confronted with a CIA/ Bushbot led attack pinned on the Saudis and then having them launching a good progressive imperialist war with Moveon, George Soros, Ben Cohen, Sheryl Crowe and Michael Moore in tow.

So yes, Ruppert hasn't been vindicated on this particular prediction yet, but simply to put the question in the public spotlight was absolutely crucial and very commendable.

I'm not going to go into the case of Delmar Mike Vreeland which I'm not an expert on. But I will say that Ruppert is correct when he says that the Vreeland case was never a large part of his presentation. I saw Ruppert speak 4 times in late 2002 and so I know that for sure.

Perhaps Ruppert was totally wrong about Vreeland, but as I indicate in my unpublished book on 9/11 media gatekeeping, that old David Corn article which was used to discredit the whole 9/11 truth movement and keep Ruppert and others off Pacifica stations and out of the oligarchy foundation backed pseudo left mass media was one of the most successful blows delivered by defenders of the status quo. In my opinion, the Nation is a shitty paper that would do the world a service by going bankrupt.

Viktor Thorne's arguments about Vreeland are overly conclusory...Just because somone is convicted of something in a US court doesn't mean anything on an ultimate level. Ethel Rosenburg went to the electric chair when the government knew she was not guilty. Julius Rosenburg was a Soviet spy but did not steal A-Bomb secrets and the government knew it. Why do people like Viktor Thorne and David Corn take the judgments of US courts and US jurys for granted?

Certainly Vreeland might be a conman or he might not. I don't know enough to say, but any argument regarding this must be based on a careful weighing of the evidence and a conclusion of a US court can be considered SOME evidence but not final evidence. Ruppert does know alot about covert ops and the biographies of deep cover US agents like Lee Harvey Oswald can be as bizarre as Vreeland. One of my favorite clips from the movie JFK is when the DA guy exclaims, "how is it that the guy can defect to the Soviet Union and then come back and not be arrested." Indeed, Lee Harvey Oswald, a US soldier and alleged leftist, learned Russian, defected to the Soviet Union with high level radar secrets, came back to the USA with the niece of a KGB colonel in tow, was given a job in a defense industry contractor, hob nobbed in the right wing Russian community while hiring unemployed people to hand out left wing fliers, visiting the Cuban embassy and planning to defect to Cuba and visiting the Soviet embassy in Mexico...

That's just not normal behavior for a leftist or a rightist. Very few American leftists defected to the Soviet Union and those that came back didn't start hanging out with right wingers while being active as leftists. I read Edward Jay Epstein's book about the life of Lee Harvey Oswald and it's surreal how you can go through this guy's life and be a reknowned author and never state as Jim Garrison did that this is just not a normal leftist. This is even considering Oswalds bizarre relationship with George De Morenschildt which I consider to perhaps be the smoking gun of the JFK assassination saga.

So anyway, maybe Ruppert screwed up on the Vreeland stuff, but it's simply not the case that Vreeland's story should automatically have been rejected -- more than that I cannot say.

Now I want to talk about population control. Angela D'Urso (who has been a courageous defender of me locally) and many others consider this a touchstone issue. I have argued in the past with LaRouchies and the Socialist Workers Party about the question.

The fact is that the world population is growing out of control. The vast majority of people in the world are young, on child bearing age and the human male penis squirts out an incredible number of spermatazoa...

Yes it is true that a lot of right wing kooks are into the population control issue -- the Bush gang being one (and back in the 60's quite openly until Bush daddy's conversion to Reaganite pro Catholic anti abortion breeding) apparently the Audobon society is controlled by some sinister monarchial elements... so yes there is some convergence here and there between the environmental movement and ruling class eugenics advocates.

It does not follow that anyone who points out the problems of population expansion is automatically a racist. And Viktor Thorn's implication that Ruppert is a racist is pretty nasty and just the kind of thing that would justify Ruppert never appearing on WING TV.

Thorn says
In addition, Ruppert’s horrifying social views are once again exposed by D’Urso. “As for creepiness, get this; Ruppert also wants to inform us that because of ‘peak oil,’ population reduction is a necessity. The only question we have to decide, he told us all at the 911 Inquiry in San Francisco, is whether we want to do it ‘nice or nasty’.”I don’t know about you, but my first reaction to this type of agenda is: WHO THE HELL DOES MIKE RUPPERT THINK HE IS? Who made him an Olympian god that determines who should live and who should die? What we’re delving into here, folks, is pure New World Order treachery – i.e. a Rockefeller-style eugenics/euthanasia nightmare.

--- this is first rate bullshit. Here Ruppert's views are unfairly conflated with ruling class genocidal insanity and not fairly. Look at the sentence,

WHO THE HELL DOES MIKE RUPPERT THINK HE IS? Who made him an Olympian god that determines who should live and who should die?

--- Mike Ruppert, to my knowledge has never advocated killing anyone and to impute these views to him comes very close to libel. Thorn is all pissed off at Ruppert threatening to sue people, so he should take the responsibility to present Ruppert's views as they are.

We need to give Ruppert the benefit of the doubt for a moment. We know it is Rupperts belief that there is no abiotic oil supply to be tapped. We know it is Ruppert's belief that there is no zero point energy and that fusion is not about to happen and that solar and wind energy cannot take the load of the world economy.

He could be wrong. Maybe some miracle fusion process will be discovered tomorrow. Maybe cold fusion already exists and is being covered up by the government. Maybe Maybe Maybe. But one thing is certain, alternative energy sources are not widely available. I like what the Real Goods catalog is doing making solar and wind energy stuff more accessible for American consumers but even there, it's not easy to produce enough solar power to provide the electricity that most of us are used to using. And that's just consumers forgetting about industry.

Ruppert could be wrong about his premise...Science may make a big leap, science may be being covered up -- and then lastly, it may be possible to run an industrial economy -- not with Hummers but some sort of industrial economy on present existing alternative energy sources.

So Ruppert may be exaggerating somewhat that there just are no other alternatives, but then again, he might be right on target. Most Americans could produce food with less artificial power if they were herded at gunpoint like Maoist peasants in the Great Leap Forward -- are they looking forward to doing that? NO WAY MAN...

You have all these Green Party hippies and all that want to eat organic produce and certainly we could produce lots of organic produce with much less power if we utilized muscle energy -- and we could do without most pesticides if we used biological controls and we would be better off with healthier soil... yeah BUT must of us would have to live in the countryside in densely populated communes with rationed food living like Amish.

And that indeed is what the world would be like today if the oil plug is pulled. So maybe Ruppert is wrong about his premise, but he has defended his premise with what appears to me to be very good analysis based on experts like Dale Allen Pfeiffer and he has produced a compelling argument that things just can't go on the way they are going on...

I also talked with an engineer named Bruce McBurney in Canada who claims that we can support a huge world population because of his miracle Carbureator which would burn gasoline much more efficiently and I'm not sure why Barry Zwicker blew this poor guy off... do a google on his HIMAC company. But I said to Bruce, even if we could sustain a huge world population...why would we want to? There are limits -- we aren't just running out of oil we are running out of fresh water, hard woods, land etc...

Also an enormous population is simply a brake on any ability to raise workers wages. A growing population is a growing population of potential scabs. So yes, maybe there is a way to keep the present population by heroic means and maybe there isn't...but inherently this number of humans is a huge strain on the biosphere...

I was driving through the former rainforest in Argentina and the only tres there were farmed Pine Trees...Pine Trees in the friggin rainforest? And it was only when we got to the national protected zone of Iguazu falls that you could really see the native flor and fauna...

Long before we run out of oil we may run out of hard woods. I've heard that half of Cambodia has been chopped down by predatious logging. I've seen it in Oregon, in Argentina and in Vancouver in front of my eyes, mountainsides stripped of native hardwoods.

Now I think Ruppert gets a little naive when he says people should just have a conference as to what to do and the USA should cease invading other countries. The USA is not going to cease invading other countries and there isn't going to be any nice conference. The future is very bleak. The powers that be have too much power to be overthrown and pretty soon we are all going to end up like the people in Fallujah. Alex Jones has shown that we are almost there anyway but look at this clip...

Returning Fallujans will face clampdown
(apparently they are going to get treated almost as badly as I was treated by Kyle at the Citizen's Commission hearings on 9/9/2004)

By Anne Barnard, Globe Staff December 5, 2004
FALLUJAH, Iraq -- The US military is drawing up plans to keep insurgents from regaining control of this battle-scarred city, but returning residents may find that the measures make Fallujah look more like a police state than the democracy they have been promised.
Under the plans, troops would funnel Fallujans to so-called citizen processing centers on the outskirts of the city to compile a database of their identities through DNA testing and retina scans. Residents would receive badges displaying their home addresses that they must wear at all times. Buses would ferry them into the city, where cars, the deadliest tool of suicide bombers, would be banned.

(I think some Green Party people would at least be excited about the no car thing...)

So anyway, this is what we are facing folks and this is why I have been saying for a long time that the only answer is an anti Bush, 9/11 Truth, girl on girl seduction movie that would at least be a good laugh.

But anyway, in my book, Mike Ruppert is no racist and no one has any right to call him that. I personally watched him in a little get together at a humble pizza place in New Haven with an almost entirely African American audience including an ex Black Panther and was truly struck by the warmth of his spirit and how much he cared about communicating his ideas to what was primarily a very humbly educated but enthusiastic crowd.

I believe that if it came down to Mike Ruppert being on a lifeboat with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, GWBush, and Cheney along with five African Americans from Watts and only supplies sufficient for six people there would be no question as to whom Ruppert would suggest to the African Americans as to whom should be chucked over the side. Limited resources and a ballooning world population is a simple reality and no amount of reverse race baiting can change it.


At June 12, 2005 at 11:11 PM, Blogger metamars said...

You write very well. I had also picked up on Vic Thorn's completely unjustified "Who made him an Olympian god that determines who should live and who should die?". Thank-you for your commentary, and for defending Ruppert, who I feel is not being fairly criticized.

By the way, I do think Ruppert has a real blind spot re 'Peak Oil'. Hubbert's peak seems indeed to be hard science which has been repeated in country after country. If you just consider oil as the only hydrocarbon available, and in only the quantities that the oil companies admit to, then we are in real trouble.
1) we are hardly at 'Peak Hydrocarbon'. There is (perhaps unfortunately) a lot more coal than there is oil. And while burning it all may well be an environmental catastrophe, the current anti-polluting state of the art of coal burning is much improved than decades ago. (So I am told by a salesman of such technology I met at a party.) Even Ruppert's site has noted how many coal-fired power plants are being built, if I recall correctly. Why does he not address the economics of coal burning?
2) I have heard a report, which I consider credible, that American oil companies have been mum on a massive oil field in a region called Gull Island in Alaska. They are sitting on as much oil as is in Saudi Arabia. See
3) Between the oil that is being hidden and coal, plus the inevitable conservation that would accompany price rises, I believe there is lots of hydrocarbon energy to last the world until fusion is viable. I attended a lecture at Princeton within the last year, and they are actually hitting their technical targets in fusion development milestones relative to the money they are spending. The reason things are taking so long is because a lot less money was spent than originally projected. I believe most of the cuts came during the Reagan administration.
4) DOE recently admitted that cold fusion is a reality. Plus, see
5) some of Ruppert's logic seems very sloppy. He has mentioned the problems of US auto manufacturers, but as far as I know, these have absolutely nothing to do with oil having doubled in price. (Or does Toyota get a break in the price of oil? Ha!) These problems were predicted years ago, and mostly have to do with defined benefits pension plans and health care costs of US employees in our brave, new, race-to-the-bottom, globalized world.
6) Breeder reactors have the potential to power civilization for millions of years, when coupled with uranium 'mining' from the sea. They are expensive compared to light water reactors, which, in turn, have been expensive compared to cheap oil. I don't know exactly to what price level oil has to rise so that nuclear and oil are competitive, but I suspect that at $50 per barrel, we have already passed that point. From
we see that in "1997, when electricity cost about 5% more; the cost of hydroelectric power on a ratepayer's bill was from two to eight cents; gas, from three to five cents; coal, five to six cents; oil, six to eight cents; and nuclear power, 10 to 12 cents (per kilowatt-hour)"
This article argues that nuclear energy has hidden costs (mostly in the form of public subsidies) but I doubt those subsidies more than quadruple the true price. If you quadruple nuclear to 44 cents and triple oil to 21 cents you not talking about a big enough difference to force all of us to become farmers, much less support contentions of a "die-off" of 300,000 human lives per day.


Post a Comment

<< Home